While I was doing a little business research, I went to the website high-schools.com. There you can put in a school district or city and get information like the names of schools, whether they're public or private, enrollment and percentage of students on free or reduced lunches. This last statistic is very interesting.
What I learned is that my school district has seven public high schools and all have a free/reduced lunch percentage greater than 33%. Five of the seven are 44% or higher. Just for comparison, I looked at an area I know to have a fairly strong economy (Virginia Beach, VA) which had 9 of it's 11 schools below 33% free or reduced lunch.
Next I looked to Mobile, AL, an area considered by many here in Pensacola to be booming economically. Not a single public high school lower than 42% on free/reduced lunch. In fact only two were below 50% and some were 90%. Astonishing!
This told me a number of things. Among them;
1. People in this area aren't working.
2. While we complain that parents are apathetic about their child's education, it shouldn't surprise us when the majority of those people are receiving government benefits and not working in positions sufficient to support their families.
Often times people will complain the school system and teachers aren't doing enough. I say; if those kids are going to graduate having few to no local business/job opportunities from which to gain experience, what do we expect the school system to do?
So, what to do from where we are? I would suggest we offer major tax incentives to bring manufacturing jobs to the area. Start there. Yes those jobs may be dirty. But do we have a ready workforce for high-tech jobs? I think not. So bring in the plants that will offer skills and labor to start building from.
Once the process is started it is up to the local workforce to get moving and take up those jobs. This may require cutting benefits to people who could be working, but aren't. A controversial move for sure, but without these measures, we face generations of unemployed people and kids with no hope for a bright future.
What do you think?
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Sunday, August 31, 2014
New Cars
Thought I'd write a little on a subject I love; cars.
My 2003 Cadillac DeVille gets a fair amount of repair work done these days and it has caused me to rent or take loaner cars while the Caddy is in the shop. It's also caused me to consider what I'd replace it with. Aw who am I kidding? I have always loved cars and if I could afford it I'd have a fleet of different models for different driving pleasures.
Anyway, two cars I recently had the use of I'll discuss here.
First the brand spankin' new Chevrolet Traverse. I think it was the LT version so it wasn't fully loaded, but nicely equipped. It had a rear-view camera and various steering wheel controls. First thing I noticed was it is made for big people. I've always thought I was large, but apparently not as big as the ideal candidate for the Traverse. Remember, I drive a Caddy DeVille. The arm rests on either side of the driver's seat in the Traverse felt a mile away. They were so far away I didn't even use them.
Next were the humungous wheels and tires. Maybe 19" are small by today's standards, but they seemed big to me. That translates into higher replacement cost than say a 16" tire.
There was no shortage of room in the Traverse. This thing reminded me of my parents' 1974 Caprice Estate wagon in terms of room. Dad used to brag that you could put 4'x8' sheets of paneling in that car...and we did. For a car over $30k I would have liked it to feel a little more luxurious in the driver's cockpit.
Second was the Cadillac ATS. The Traverse was a rental. The ATS was a free loaner. It had less than 5,000 miles on it. This car is SMALL. The footwell is so small, there's nowhere to put your right foot once you engage the cruise control.
This is another car that sells for over $30,000 but Cadillac expects it to go up against the BMW 3 series and other small imports. Maybe people shopping for these cars don't care how much they get for their money, but this IS a Cadillac. It oughta come with auto-dimming rearview mirror and memory seats.
The infotainment system in the center looked and felt cheap. There's a bunch of glossy black and cheap-looking chrome. It wasn't real clear whether you needed to touch the word (e.g. Radio) on the glossy black, or push what looked like the cheap chrome button just below the word Radio.
The car was small, but tight. I mean real tight. It accelerated well and although the ride was a little rough for my liking, I got the impression the suspension would be right at home on a road course. Only problem is; nobody who buys this will be driving it on a road course.
The ATS felt so cheap, I wanted to test drive a new Hyundai Elantra to see if it would feel the same or better. I know the ATS is not the same car as the Chevy Cruze, but the quality of construction felt like Chevy. The back seat was one of the cheapest I've seen in any car, regardless of cost.
If Cadillac doesn't sell tons of ATS's to rental fleets, I don't think they'll be around long, in their current form. The Chevy Traverse on the other hand, is the new family-mobile for large people. I think they'll sell lots of them.
Whatchathink?
My 2003 Cadillac DeVille gets a fair amount of repair work done these days and it has caused me to rent or take loaner cars while the Caddy is in the shop. It's also caused me to consider what I'd replace it with. Aw who am I kidding? I have always loved cars and if I could afford it I'd have a fleet of different models for different driving pleasures.
Anyway, two cars I recently had the use of I'll discuss here.
First the brand spankin' new Chevrolet Traverse. I think it was the LT version so it wasn't fully loaded, but nicely equipped. It had a rear-view camera and various steering wheel controls. First thing I noticed was it is made for big people. I've always thought I was large, but apparently not as big as the ideal candidate for the Traverse. Remember, I drive a Caddy DeVille. The arm rests on either side of the driver's seat in the Traverse felt a mile away. They were so far away I didn't even use them.
Next were the humungous wheels and tires. Maybe 19" are small by today's standards, but they seemed big to me. That translates into higher replacement cost than say a 16" tire.
There was no shortage of room in the Traverse. This thing reminded me of my parents' 1974 Caprice Estate wagon in terms of room. Dad used to brag that you could put 4'x8' sheets of paneling in that car...and we did. For a car over $30k I would have liked it to feel a little more luxurious in the driver's cockpit.
Second was the Cadillac ATS. The Traverse was a rental. The ATS was a free loaner. It had less than 5,000 miles on it. This car is SMALL. The footwell is so small, there's nowhere to put your right foot once you engage the cruise control.
This is another car that sells for over $30,000 but Cadillac expects it to go up against the BMW 3 series and other small imports. Maybe people shopping for these cars don't care how much they get for their money, but this IS a Cadillac. It oughta come with auto-dimming rearview mirror and memory seats.
The infotainment system in the center looked and felt cheap. There's a bunch of glossy black and cheap-looking chrome. It wasn't real clear whether you needed to touch the word (e.g. Radio) on the glossy black, or push what looked like the cheap chrome button just below the word Radio.
The car was small, but tight. I mean real tight. It accelerated well and although the ride was a little rough for my liking, I got the impression the suspension would be right at home on a road course. Only problem is; nobody who buys this will be driving it on a road course.
The ATS felt so cheap, I wanted to test drive a new Hyundai Elantra to see if it would feel the same or better. I know the ATS is not the same car as the Chevy Cruze, but the quality of construction felt like Chevy. The back seat was one of the cheapest I've seen in any car, regardless of cost.
If Cadillac doesn't sell tons of ATS's to rental fleets, I don't think they'll be around long, in their current form. The Chevy Traverse on the other hand, is the new family-mobile for large people. I think they'll sell lots of them.
Whatchathink?
Thursday, August 21, 2014
"Mid-Life?"
As you may notice, my posts come few and far between. Typically that's because I give great thought to what I write. Unfortunately that means I'll write, save, rewrite, save, revise, save and then (finally) publish. Sorry for that, but I hope that means what you read is well thought-out.
Today I cannot hold my tongue any longer on the concept of what I'll call; living the dream. So here goes.
Growing up I somehow got the impression that living the dream meant big house, fancy cars, lots of money, kids and vacations. My parents didn't do this to me, I just think I must have seen so much of those things around me, on tv and in movies that I believed that must be what would bring happiness. This belief resulted in my going through many financial ups and downs over the years. I've accumulated lots of nice things and had to relinquish some of them in order to get through some of the lean times. Every "lean time" showed me how little all those "things" really mattered. It has taken a long time (and lots of money) to get where I am today; getting by, but not exactly wealthy.
***Right here I want to stop and say that my early perceptions played a role in my having high expectations and high standards. That, to some extent, has been a very good thing. I've been fortunate to hold positions normally filled by people with more education than me. It has also meant I pursue knowledge where some might not be concerned and I love having a great deal of knowledge. It has also translated into attracting some very intelligent people into my life…and that is a good thing.
Today I believe firmly in financial guru Dave Ramsey's "live like no one else today so you can live like no one else tomorrow" philosophy. Now, that doesn't mean I'm actually doing everything Ramsey suggests.
I say all of the above, to segue into the meat of what I now realize.
The farther you can live below your "means" and still be happy, the better off you will be in the long run. See, when I was going through the years of becoming a homeowner (the 1990's) we were told to buy the most house we could qualify for (re; mortgage payment). Being a veteran, I had the benefit of not needing any down payment. Most people would consider that a blessing and I've really liked both houses we've owned. However, it also means minimal equity for a longer period of time. Furthermore, you are then pressured to always make at least as much money as you were when you bought the house. So much for surviving a down economy, major medical illness or just wanting a career change.
Take stock of your long-term goals early. Work for them. Once you get married, it ain't as easy as Dave Ramsey says. A married couple must agree on finances, just like parents must agree on decisions for their children. Getting two minds to agree is not always as easy as the young-and-in-love couple thinks.
I really believe most of us have been duped into believing we should be able to eat out a lot, take lavish vacations, have 3+ flat screen tv's, expensive cars and the latest clothes.
I say "duped" because we now have all these "conveniences" that are supposed to make us more productive and free up time, but we spend less time together as a family. We are living so "high on the hog" in our everyday life, we often can't afford to take even the cheap vacations, hence the "staycation." We also are spending so much money on today, that I fear much of the American population will be dirt poor in their retirement years. This will be a major shift from today's seniors who saved and in some cases, had pensions (before the advent of the 401k).
After living with many of the luxuries my parents would've thought out of reach, I'd be willing to live in a double-wide (or manufactured) home for less money, if it meant I got to be with my family more, take vacations and had more disposable income.
I've had the benefit of living above my means and below my means. I can say with absolute certainty, living below your means has numerous benefits all the toys in the world can't make up for.
Today I cannot hold my tongue any longer on the concept of what I'll call; living the dream. So here goes.
Growing up I somehow got the impression that living the dream meant big house, fancy cars, lots of money, kids and vacations. My parents didn't do this to me, I just think I must have seen so much of those things around me, on tv and in movies that I believed that must be what would bring happiness. This belief resulted in my going through many financial ups and downs over the years. I've accumulated lots of nice things and had to relinquish some of them in order to get through some of the lean times. Every "lean time" showed me how little all those "things" really mattered. It has taken a long time (and lots of money) to get where I am today; getting by, but not exactly wealthy.
***Right here I want to stop and say that my early perceptions played a role in my having high expectations and high standards. That, to some extent, has been a very good thing. I've been fortunate to hold positions normally filled by people with more education than me. It has also meant I pursue knowledge where some might not be concerned and I love having a great deal of knowledge. It has also translated into attracting some very intelligent people into my life…and that is a good thing.
Today I believe firmly in financial guru Dave Ramsey's "live like no one else today so you can live like no one else tomorrow" philosophy. Now, that doesn't mean I'm actually doing everything Ramsey suggests.
I say all of the above, to segue into the meat of what I now realize.
The farther you can live below your "means" and still be happy, the better off you will be in the long run. See, when I was going through the years of becoming a homeowner (the 1990's) we were told to buy the most house we could qualify for (re; mortgage payment). Being a veteran, I had the benefit of not needing any down payment. Most people would consider that a blessing and I've really liked both houses we've owned. However, it also means minimal equity for a longer period of time. Furthermore, you are then pressured to always make at least as much money as you were when you bought the house. So much for surviving a down economy, major medical illness or just wanting a career change.
Take stock of your long-term goals early. Work for them. Once you get married, it ain't as easy as Dave Ramsey says. A married couple must agree on finances, just like parents must agree on decisions for their children. Getting two minds to agree is not always as easy as the young-and-in-love couple thinks.
I really believe most of us have been duped into believing we should be able to eat out a lot, take lavish vacations, have 3+ flat screen tv's, expensive cars and the latest clothes.
I say "duped" because we now have all these "conveniences" that are supposed to make us more productive and free up time, but we spend less time together as a family. We are living so "high on the hog" in our everyday life, we often can't afford to take even the cheap vacations, hence the "staycation." We also are spending so much money on today, that I fear much of the American population will be dirt poor in their retirement years. This will be a major shift from today's seniors who saved and in some cases, had pensions (before the advent of the 401k).
After living with many of the luxuries my parents would've thought out of reach, I'd be willing to live in a double-wide (or manufactured) home for less money, if it meant I got to be with my family more, take vacations and had more disposable income.
I've had the benefit of living above my means and below my means. I can say with absolute certainty, living below your means has numerous benefits all the toys in the world can't make up for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
